Celeron M 560 vs Dual-Core T3000
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron M 560 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | Intel Celeron M |
| Architecture codename | Penryn-1M (2009) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron M 560 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2.13 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 143 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 291 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron M 560 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Socket | P (478) | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 30 Watt |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 May 2009 | 1 May 2008 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 30 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 has an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 560, on the other hand, has 16.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron M 560. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron M 560, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
